User talk:Sikandarji

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Etimbo | Talk 11:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Kipchaks move
Can you please explain on Talk:Kipchaks why you moved that article from Kypchaks to Kipchaks? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   12:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

History of Central Asia
I have listed History of Central Asia on Peer review in the hope of eventually bringing it up to Featured article status. I note that you have done some good work in this area, and to that article in particular. Do you have any views on the article or any suggested improvements? - SimonP 01:40, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Maps
Mr. Sikandarji! Do you have historical maps of Central Asia in XIX century? I would like to illustrate page about Kokhand khanate with this map.Greenvert 09:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much!-Greenvert 09:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Kalmyk people
If you have time, can you take a look at the discussion? Some Kalmyk POV-pushers seem to discard the word "Kalmyk" as a Turkic loan and advocate renaming the article to "Oyrat". Also, they deny the Mongolian ethnicity of the Kalmyks. --Ghirla | talk 07:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits
Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

India related links
You may find the above links to be of some help, welcome!! --Gurubrahma 15:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for the cleanup job you have done on babur - as well as fixing my appalling gramma you added pertinent info, such as the "sign of the assumption of sovereignty" - That explains the impotance, whereas I had left it assuming people knew that - Which was stupid of me! Thank you again! --Irishpunktom\talk 17:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Woah - Farsi, Hindi and Urdu! - And English.. I am impressed! I actually began to expand the article on Babur after I was reading books on Timur, and his direct line.. After I get to finish this accurately I'm gonna try and have a go expanding the rest of the Timurid members, starting with Khalil Sultan, and if you can help (Looking at your studies are, i'm  hoping you will) it would be appreciated --Irishpunktom\talk 20:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Please pay attention
Thank you for your editing of Bibi-Khanym Mosque page. I recently made new contributions to the pages I have a favour to ask of you. Would you be so kind to pay attention to them too Jabez 12:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Gur-e Amir
 * Samanid mausoleum
 * Lyab-i Khauz.
 * Kyzyl Kum

Thank you for your attention... from Jabez
Thank you for your attention and editing of my works! I highly appreciate your help. I completely trust your experience and knowledge, therefore you can move the name of Lyab-i Khauz. Just few minutes ago I finished new page that is related to the history of Tashkent its name is Gates of Tashkent Jabez 10:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Спасибо за Ваш труд.
Спасибо огромное за Вашу работу. Мне очень понравилось, как тщательно Вы привели в порядок статью Lyab-i Hauz. Не знаю, право, чем я могу быть полезным для Вас, но я Ваш должник! Надеюсь на Вашу неоценимую поддержку в будущем. Дмитрий. Jabez 05:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet again!
Another brilliant job at babur! Thank you again! --Irishpunktom\talk 21:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Babur
Hey, this may help with your citing problems: Citing sources/example style. If you have any other questions please just ask. Many thanks, Highway 13:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I like the changes you've made. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations for the edit in the article Babur. The article sounds good to me. Tajik 15:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi!
Hi! Yeah, this kinda comments just incite prople. I have been previously incited in this way, and also I have incited others in this way! It happens, you know. I guess this anon, and the prvious anon who used to push the same POV are same, as their IPs are quite close! Can you point out other PoVs in the article Subhash Chandra Bose? if yes, please discuss in the talk page of the article. I have a desire to put it into peer review, not now, may be after 3 or 4 months. Also, I request you to please go through, if you have time, the article Kolkata which is currently undergoing a peer review. Thanks a lot. Bye.--Dwaipayanc 18:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You previously told me that you were rather bordering on an anti-bose thinking. And precisely that is why I asked you to see the article. Many things will seem PoV to you which may escape the eyes of me or others, who are rather fond of Bose. I myself have not minutely read the article. Will do so soon. Thanks for your comments. Maybe I will contact you in future when further changes, if any, are made to the article - for review again! Thanks a lot.Bye.--Dwaipayanc 05:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

On Subhas Bose
Hi! I found some interesting stuff. Sadly, the content is no more on the web. It's now in cached form. Try this If it does not work,then type "subhas bose nazi" in Google (all file format) search. The 5th return is what I am talking about. Click the "cache" link. The site is andaman.org. Here it is stated clearly that Bose was a fascist, and became anti-democratic in later years. How can we use this cached link as reference in the page? Any idea? BTW, the article is available in Internet archive in this form. Bye.--Dwaipayanc 05:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Until we get book reference, we can use it. I would like to request you to write some lines based on that reference and add it to the Bose article, citing the reference.( I think the snapshot pages from the Internet archive can easily be given as reference, and, people can click to those pages.) Then I will see what you have added, and if you have added something that seems NPoV. In that way, I guess, the comment will become balanced. Since, the reference clearly tells and reasons why Bose was a fascist but not a Nazi, you should write that in the article. So, you start adding these stuffs to the article, I will see it later. Bye! --Dwaipayanc 07:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Further on Bose
In the Introductory note by George Weber of Subhas Chandra Bose 1897-1945 by Prof. Satadru Sen I see this :"For someone brought up on the British version of events (as I was), to land at Calcutta airport and find it named after Subhas Chandra Bose is a bit of a shock - akin perhaps to landing at Berlin airport and finding it named after Adolf Hitler." I myself had really no idea of this image of Bose in England. It becomes quite clear to me now why the article Subhash Chandra Bose is unacceptable to many! Naturally, the article would seem NPoV. On the contrary, the Indian image is almost pole apart!

I have never been to your user page before today when I saw that you are an Oxford academic specialising in history. I guess you can avail of many references if you want to. If you have time, why don't you go ahead and restructure the "Political views" section? Of course, with citing references. Thanks and bye.--Dwaipayanc 08:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have any trouble formatting the references, just follow the format I inserted it th e"In Germany" section. You can copy paste it. Do not forget the guiding the actual refernce. Bye.--Dwaipayanc 08:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It is nor wrong to point out alternative. But please give reference, I mean not reference that India won independence by the alternative. But please provide reference to your comment that "...many Indians would argue is too high, given that there were alterative means for pressing for Independence which ultimately proved effective."
 * This is because, I now have the reference (which you refuted by saying that Atlee did not know much about India, which may be true, considering you know much more than I of history) that really the pressure created by Gandhi did not have much to do with the independence. You know, I myself do not believe this Atlee's words. That is why I have not discussed this reference in the article. But if you want to stick on to your comment, I shall refute that with that reference in the body of the article.
 * Please do not take ir as a war between us. What I want to point out that the article is already full of un-referenced comments. We just want to make the article a good, referenced article. Please cooperate. Thanks.Regards.--Dwaipayanc 10:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have erased that portion again. But have not erased it totally. If you click edit, you will see the comment betwwen two sign. If you come up with a good reference, please fell free to reinsert your comment in the article. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 10:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow
Exactly that was what I was expecting from an Oxford academic. Bombarding a layman with lots of great stuff!! Thanks a lot for your cooperation. And a request, when you come up with reference, please also point out some remarks showing that the decision of Bose of allying Axis might be out of pragmatism as well.(You know the sentiments!!!)

Well, that Gandhi and INC was the main factor behind 1947 is beyond any doubt, no one perhaps need any reference for that. But in this article on Bose, I suddenly found that "Political view" was becoming too critical of Bose. And if it goes on in this way, we'll have to use references that indicate that Gandhi was not that instrumental, despite I don't believe that.

Rageding some of your points:

"a) most Indians (and particularly the Congress leadership of the time) would not have wanted to see an Axis victory in World War II - I think it unlikely that many would dispute this"
 * Frankly speaking, I do not have any idea. I have not read much about congress leaders (except, of course, Gandhi, Nehru, Patel etc). And I doubt if the rural mass of India were at all concerned with the Axis and Allied stuffs. Yes, I think, the educated urbans would not have wanted to see an Axis victory. But one cannot be sure. I do not know (you may know from your work) if the racial pollicies of the Nazis were de-classified by then and were available for the newspapers. However, the revolutionary factions of freedom fighters can be guessed to be not exactly unhappy with the German rising against the British. In a similar situation of WW1, Indian revolutionaries planned to stage a revolt against the british with German help. If you ask me, or any Indian now, nobody would have liked to see an Axis victory.

"b) that Indian politicians at the time did not have to make a straight choice between supporting the Axis and thus bringing about Indian Independence, or resigning themselves to the continuation of British rule indefinitely in the wake of Allied Victory"
 * Probably yes. I do not know, yet again! But I guess making a straight choice would have accelerated independence. From today's viewpoint, it hardly matters if independence came 4 or 5 years earlier. But in 1939, nobody could have been dead sure that a particular policy would be best to get independence. And to act according to the time would have been a good choice. Bose made a choice that was quite radical, while INC made a choice that was somewhat calm, and, to some extent, compromising, though now it may appear more moral and perhaps more ideologically appealing. But if you were to put yourself in the shoes of a man with a bit revolutionary thinking of those days, perhaps you also would have chosen a more musculine decision.

"Gandhi and the Congress had simply made the political and human cost of staying in India far too high for the British, and that was what they had intended from the beginning."
 * Yes. But again, perhaps being a bit more stern when the time was ripe could have hastened freedom. Anyway, no point discussing what would or could have happened.

Now I want to let you know another point which I have often seen creeping into the discussions, especially when those directly affected by the partition (some of my relatives, for example) argue in the similar topic which we are now talking about. I do not know if historians have also argued in the topic. I have seen people directly accusing Gandhi (and INC) for partition and their personal woes (just like some political parties in present India). And these aged persons often dream a un-partitioned India with Subhas Bose as the first head of state! Now, these are perhaps laymen, unaware of the pros and cons. But, people are the material that form the history. I wonder why this sentiment? Do you have any idea as a historian?

Our talks are becoming quite long! May I propose to shift some of our discussion to email? My email is contactdc@gmail.com. You can mail me if you wish.Thanks, Bye.--Dwaipayanc 11:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Humayun
Greetings. I have made a series of contributions to the Humayun article, and was hoping you could take a look and make any fixes or additions you may feel are needed. Thanks. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

New pages about Uzbekistan
Hello, I recently started two more pages Aidar-Kul Lake, Sarmishsay, and just today Sheihantaur. I hope you will find time for visiting them. Thank you sincerely Jabez 12:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Presidency
Thanks a lot for the info. I did not know the fact. Could you comment if just moving the article under the new name would suffice? I think, better still, you can start an article Bengal Presidency, then the content of this Calcutta Presidency will be shifted to that page as necessary and with necessary edits. Thanks a lot.--Dwaipayanc 09:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh! I just got your message! Please start the article Bengal Presidency. This Calcutta Presidency can be merged with that, not in toto, but as needed. You should be able to get hold of some reference materials to start the article. It need not be large. In fact, I think old Britannica would prove to be a good source.Bye.--Dwaipayanc 09:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Subhas Chandra Bose & The Bengal Presidency
In fact, I was seeing some of the changes you made in the Bose article, though I did not exactly go through those. A lot of long references I saw. Regarding Bengal Presidency, I made necessary changes in the Kolkata article (history) section and linked to Bengal Presidency as needed. Ir is a wonderful and very informative article. Thank you for taking the effort to write the article. Bye.--Dwaipayanc 17:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Subhas Talk
Hi! I have added a "Ro Do" list in Bose talk page. Please see if you can help. The list is not on priority basis, neither it has any deadline! It is not exhaustive either. I just thought of some areas where improvements can be done. There may be more areas. Thank you.--Dwaipayanc 18:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Robert Clive
Thanks loads for your work on the article about Clive. It seriously needs attention. --Richard Clegg 23:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Subhash
Of course. Emilie Schenkl must be mentioned in teh article. Thanks for pointing out the miss. In fact, pre-WW2 days overall less represented. A tough task ahead is to summarise the "Political View" section, it's too large. A virgin reader won't be interested in all this. If necessaey, a daughter article on Political views of Subhash Chandra Bose will have to be created to discuss in detail. Thanks.

P.S. Have you read Jinnah lately? It is on Featured Articles Candidature now. Read it, very good article. Bye.--Dwaipayanc 09:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

St Lawrence Ground
Hello Sikandarji,

I just reverted your change of St Lawrence Ground to St. Lawrence Ground. I admire your pedantry &mdash; Wikipedia needs more people who care about things like that. But in this case, I think you're wrong. In British (although not American) English, it's conventional not to use a full stop if the last letter of the abbreviation is the same as the last letter of the word. E.g., "Dr Fred Smith" but "Prof. Fred Smith".

Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Have a look at American and British English differences for a reference to this convention. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow! That was a fantastic thing to learn! This punctuation mark. Bye the way, Sikandarji, Kolkata is a featured article candidate now. You can leave some comment, if you wish to. You might be most interested in the "History". Unfortunately, the history is in extreme summary form! Please see if you point out some important/notable stuff has been left out.--Dwaipayanc 19:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You will be glad to know I was thinking in the same line regarding the black hole! But I was not sure due to my lack of knowledge. Thanks for the input. Hope the article is otherwise able to satisfy a lerned historian. Bye!--Dwaipayanc 19:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Ya it's quite late here! I am going to sleep soon. Yes, I read your edits in History of Kolkata. Though I have noticed that you had made changes in Clive, I could not manage to read the article. It will be great if you comment on Kolkata in the  featured article candidate page. Once Kolkata is through, I will try to spare some energy in Bose. However, I do not have much source, so cannot really add to what is already there. Will concentrate on summarising! Bye. Thanks a lot.--Dwaipayanc 20:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the effort you are putting in History of Kolkata.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Indian Rebellion of 1857
Dear Sikandarji, I have just taken a look at the discussion page of this gentleman and at one of the pages where he carried a discussion. I suppose one could also call it a verbal amok-run. It is actually unbelievable how the gentleman in question conducts himself and what language, a lecturer in History at respected institutions as per his own statement, uses to discuss with people. It seems to be his favourite pastime to accuse people of other nationalities of being "nationalists", see e.g. Talk:World War II evacuation and expulsion. Nonetheless, I indeed was a bit surprised that you did not react to his changes. But I must admit, I also did not notice the changes at first glance. It would be nice, if you could also keep an eye on such uncalled-for, biased edits. I think, we have done a pretty good work in previous weeks and should not allow disruptive people to damage it. And no, I surely don't think that all Englishmen behave like this. I know many of them personally too well to get such an idea. Bye. --Raj 00:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Said
Thanks for clarification. I've been thinking over expanding that section myself, but you were faster. I'm not pretending to be an expert in literary studies, but perhaps the reason there isn't much on that issue in the article is that there isn't much to talk about in terms of his contributions. Of course, I may be entirely wrong. Another thing that still bothers me about that article is his characterization as "one of the most influential scholars" in the intro, which is unashamedly POV. Said is famous for Orientalism and politics, and this is what the intro must discuss, instead of giving warm, but POV and inane, quotes from obituaries. Pecher Talk 13:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Edward Said
Hi Sikandarji,

I think your criticism of Edward Said is quite interesting. I don't blindly agree with his work, especially the way he focused exclusively in language, literature, symbols and images, as if the whole world wasn't anything else. Said could concentrate on the way an earthquake was covered by the media instead of in the earthquake itself. That sort of reductionism might find its origin in Foucault or in professional distortion and sometimes affected his ideas on colonialism. But whilst this discussion is academically and intellectually fertile, Weiner's libels are nothing but plain garbage. I'm trying to find a way to clearly separate such garbage from academic, sometimes harsh discussions Said had with other scholars. --Filius Rosadis 00:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Darjeeling
Hi! Could you please have a quick look of Darjeeling? Please give your suggestions in the article's talk page. This is for an internal review before moving to peer review. Thanks. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for the excellent addition of that quotation of Marquess of Zetland on the Transport in Darjeeling article. Also thanks for the review of Darjeeling you are doing. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, do you have that book? I mean the book by the Earl?--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be great if you can dig up some historical information on the colonial schools of Darjeeling. They must have a nice history. Please also try for "Darjeeling Disaster". I have requested one wikipedoan who is soon going to Darjeeling for getting some photos, especially of the colonial architecture of the city and may be some cultural stuffs.
 * I have been to Darjeeling a few years back. It's really painful to see how the town has degraded. It seems like an extended Sealdah bazar. Everywhere people shouting and shopping. Only when you get out of the tourist hoipolloi, you get to see those beutiful houses, mostly Mock Tudor (I do not have any idea though, I read somewhere). I read that in Windemare Hotel, you can get some touch of the old Raj days. Kalimpong also has got some good architectural relics and evidences.
 * Now that you mention Glenary's...it's wonderful, isn't it? We also had breakfast there, but, as usual, missed the sunrise !! Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Kizilbash
Hello Sikandarji. I have done some writing in the "Kizilbash" article. Could you please have a look at it, since you seem to have good knowledge about Mughals, Safavids, and so forth. Your feedback would be really helpful. Thx Tajik 12:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added some info about the Kizilbash in Afghanistan. It's short, but for now, it's all I could find. What we need is some information about the Kizilbash in India and Pakistan. Do you have any sources? I am talking about the Kizilbash in Mughal India, for example Bayram Khan or all the Persian queens in India of whom many had Kizilbash mothers or fathers. Tajik 19:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

New changes in Bose
Hi! We have a new user in Subhas Chandra Bose, himself named SCBose, and evidently pole apart from you on point of view reagarding Netaji!! I have not read the exact edits though. Will do so when I get some time. I am a bit busy with Darjeeling. Looking for further addition from you in Darjeeling. Bye.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:Kolkata
Well, it was my fault. After I automatically removed that addition, I thought that I should have manually removed the addition, alongwith explanation.

Well, the only objection I had was the addition in Kolkata article. The content of that sentence was ok. Why should one be tempted to remove "British"? It is well-known that British did those things.

After your message, I again went through that edit, and I agre with you probably I should not have removed that line. Thanks. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Indian rebellion of 1857
To be fair the only edits I made were in the Mangal Pande section .. the other edits were by completely different people - especially about the caste profiles of the Bengal army etc. My only edits were to correct the name of the Jemadar who refused to restrain Mangal Pande (Ishwari Prasad, not Ishwari Pandey) - and a few other things there. srs 09:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

edit - thanks for the clarification. the comment mentioned something about my edit, reading it again i see what you mean. cheers. srs 12:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, made a couple more changes to the article - and added a page on the Enfield pattern of 1853 rifle-musket as well. Comments welcome on that.

Sart and Babur
Thanks for your comments. That "IP" is ignoring sources and is messing up the article with wrong information. As for Sart, the article looks fine to me. All important information has been added. Maybe you'll find some time to have a look at Kizilbash. I need some help about the part regarding Kizilbash influence in India.

Tajik 17:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And please take also a look at Alisher Navoi ... the article looks good, but contains MANY spelling mistakes. Tajik 17:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Questions
Two questions, I asked Siddiqui this, but, I think you'ld also be inclined to read it.
 * 1) Have you read On Late Style, and if so, what are your thoughts?
 * 2) Do you want to help me kick off a "Hujum" article? - I think its relevent in light of recent events, and considering your work on Jadid, I'm guessing you'll know more than I! --Irishpunktom\talk 14:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guessed you wouldn't like him alright! I still thought you might read it, its just a collection of essays. I just ordered Northrops book yesterday, maybe I should have held off starting this till then! - Still though, your help is always appreciated! --Irishpunktom\talk 10:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, certainly worth a purchase. i'm still waiting on Northrops book, Its coming in from the States, but its still slower than usual getting here.  Also, can you please list all the problems you've had working with me on my Arb Com request, thank you.  --Irishpunktom\talk 13:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I just read what you have written, thank you! Go raibh maith agat --Irishpunktom\talk 13:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Babur

 * Hi, I really do not understand the problems over stating a simple fact which is that Babur was a Turk, why is that guy getting so upset, I mean Babur wasn't a Persian, its hilarious to even mention he is.

If you look at the articles he contributes to nearly all of them are trying to push an anti-Turk POV and pretend that they don't exist its very childish and has no place in Wikipedia.

I have took the time to actually research these facts but he keeps deleting them because it doesn't meet his POV which should not be tolerated in Wikipedia, please read this and add a clear sentance because its quite confusing.

Babur himself calls himself a Turk, this is a primary Historical source, I have tried to add this paragraph which I feel is required but that member and his friends keep trying to delete it for absolutely no reason.

This bias has been shown countless times, for example trying to call Sarts and Tajiks, Persians, inflating and exagerating certain events and pretending other things didn't happen.

Please read this and find a place to put it in if you can.

''Babur was a fourteenth generation descendant from the Turkic Barlas tribe which was originally Mongol[S. A. M. Adshead. "Tamerlane and the Global Arsenal, 1370-1405" from his Central Asia in World History, Chapter 5]. Over the generations they had become Turkified in language, manners and custom as they resided in Turkish areas. Therefore the Western term "Mughal" is a misnomer as Babur referred to himself as a Turk, drew most of his support from Turks, and the empire he founded was initially Turkish in character[^ Hambly (1968) Brend, B. (1991). "Islamic Art". Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press]. It is clear, from Babur's writing that he considered himself a Turk. Although Babur was descended on his mother's side from Chingiz Khan's second son, Chaghatai, it is clear that this Mongol lineage meant less to him than his paternal ancestry which linked him with the great Turkish conqueror, Timur.''

About Timur

Arnold Toynbee, one of the most distinguished modern historians, called Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah ("Introduction to History") "undoubtedly the greatest work of its kind that has ever yet been created by any mind in any time or place."

Here is what Ibn Khaldun wrote,

"You know how the power of the Arabs was established when they became united in their religion in following their Prophet. As for the Turks ... in their group solidarity, no king on earth can be compared with them, not Chosroes nor Caesar nor Alexander nor Nebuchadnezzar."

This relates to source I give in the Babur paragraph

'''S. A. M. Adshead. "Tamerlane and the Global Arsenal, 1370-1405" from his Central Asia in World History, Chapter 5'''

'''It was in this unstable world that Temur Barlas built up his political machine. He was born in 1336, not far from Samarkand, the son of a lesser chief of the Barlas obogh. The Barlas were one of a group of five or six ex-Mongol, now Turkish, oboghs or pseudo oboghs which provided the four qarac beys or regents who constituted an informal council of state with or against the khans. The Barlas held the area between the Oxus and the Jaxartes around Samarkand. The Qaraunas and the Arlat held the middle Oxus and points south into Khorasan and Afghan Turkestan.......'''

The following passage, drawn from Guy Le Strange's 1928 translation of Gonzalez de Clavijo's Spanish text

''On a June morning in the year 1404, a party of Spaniards on horseback crossed the frontier between Armenia and Persia and headed for the nearby city of Khoy, in the Persian province of Azerbaijan. The group's leaders, Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo, Friar Alfonso Paez de Santa Maria, and Gomez de Salazar, were the ambassadors of King Henry III of Castile and Leon - an uncle of Portugal's Prince Henry the Navigator and grandfather of Queen Isabella I, Columbus' patron

Tamerlane, a Turk of the Barlas clan. Perhaps the Mamluk envoy Manglay Bugay, probably of Turkish origin, interpreted for his Spanish traveling companions.''

In Western sources before the technological age, they didn't bother researching what people actually were, a Britannica 1911 edition article didn't actually research what Timur was, there was no difference between Mongol and Turk in those days and little information regarding these differences.

Most striking is that Ibn Khaldun wrote that about him as Ibn Khaldun actually met him.

Regards

--Johnstevens5 14:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi! I put Darjeeling on peer review. Check it out and comment as u feel necessary. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 10:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Central Asia
WikiProject Central Asia has finally been created! If you're interested, please consider joining us. Aelfthrytha 21:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ooty
OK, I'll largely accept what you say about the name (though 'no one uses it' is an exaggeration, the question is usage in print). Actually I compared the totals of Udagamandalam & Udhagamandalam agaisnt Ootacamund, and left it at that. Imc 20:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi and others
Hi! How are you? I am back after a long wikibreak. Saw the Subhas Bose talk page.However, I am busy with some other articles and will look into the Bose article not in near future. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad is in peer review. Please have a look. This article has a bounty on it (that is, somebody will donate some money to Wikipedia if it gets featured within this year). Also I shall be pushing Darjeeling for FAC soon (am waiting for domr images and also some more inputs in the culture section). Please see the Azad article. Did you notice recently Jinnah, Iqbal and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman got featured status? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Expert help needed
Hi! Please see the article Arthur Campbell, Superintendent of Darjeeling sanitarium. There are several views regarding the name of this person who is the father of Darjeeling tea. Have cited some sources regarding several names. Could you please help decide? Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for letting me know, all the mosques and tombs in Uzbekistan] look vey similar becuase all of them have similar architectural styles. You can remove it and put it in the [[Samarkand page or go to Islamic architecture then add it on. Thanks!  Abdullah Geelah 13:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC).

Hi Sikandarji
Please visit page and add your personal email at the bottom for better collaboration, networking and comunication. Thanks :) Omerlives

Thanks
Hello Sikandarji,

Thanks for your work on the Bengal Famine article.

Regards,

Jayanta Sen 18:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Tipu Sultan
Hi, having seen you do a great job on the 1857 mutiny page, and the way you respond to ultra-patriotic type edits, I'd suggest you take a look at Tipu Sultan. There are some very combative + rude edits from User:Vgowda and User:Vikramji who sound rather like the same person (and indeed Vgowda has a userpage that just says his name is Vikram Gowda). He's accusing half the editors of being sockpuppets of each other, bent on writing stuff about Tipu being a muslim despot, anti kannada etc. Very virulent language at that. And then there's User:Hkelkar who has a hindutva-ish but still inflammatory point of view .. plus a lot of wikipedia "lawyership" at his disposal. A lot more civilized than vgowda in his language though, probably can be dealt with. On the other side are a few others - User:mujeerkhan etc, who seem bent on proving that Tipu was a kind, scholarly, good ruler etc. I rather suspect the truth lies between the two but there's too many black and white portraits, and very very poor historical references, like Sita Ram Goel etc, being cited. You might want to take a look at the article. srs 03:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. There are one or two bigots there who will jump on your muslim sounding name and immediately declare you a sockpuppet of somebody or the other .. but dont worry about that. Anything you do can only improve the article. srs 06:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you SO much for the edits, especially the Shankaracharya cites and other references. I sincerely appreciate the effort you're putting into all this and will gladly buy you a beer / dinner if we should ever meet srs 14:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, I am very grateful for your sourced edits. I will cross check them, of course, but I am assuming good faith that they are ok. I reverted out 2 statements that I consider POV as they take a position in a non-neutral narrative that is YOUR conclusion and not admissible on wikipedia.That is all. 90% of your edits are very good as far as I can tell right now and I thank you.

diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tipu_Sultan&diff=83086988&oldid=83085211

Hkelkar 22:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your claims about Wilks and Fitzpatrick m is a violation of WP:NOR. Cite a source that explicitly alleges that W & F are bigots and that would be fine. Plus, my asseretions are backed up by Muslim historians like C.K Kareem (see my citations)Hkelkar 22:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In additin, your religious/nationalistic affiliations are of no importance to me. I only care about your edits. Just FYI. Good luck.Hkelkar 22:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Query
Hi! How are you? West Bengal is a Featured article candidate now. I have a query. Do you have a respectable source citing the estimated number of death in 1770 Bengal Famine? Some web sources cite a staggering figure of 10 millions. In the article West Bengal, no exact figure has been cited. It would be great if you could help. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hephthalites
Hi Sikandarji,

since you are an expert on Central Asian history: could you please have a look at the article Hephthalites?! The old problem with some Turkish Wiki-Users: pushing for a Pan-Turkistic POV. Tājik 22:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (unintending) Hey, i read your comments, thanks for your contribution. However, you came to the page keeping the pov of Tājik in mind. I'm not the one trying to put nationalistic fork. I seached the world wide recognized, simply reachable sources and compared them with the article, then edited directly from these sources. There is no bad faith in it. If you read from the start of the discussion/talk page, i already presented there the complete content of these encyclopedia pages. After a while other users involved in, then they started to dispute everything. For this reason, i proposed to refer to international English enyclopedias Columbia and Britannica rather than Turkish and Iranian encyclopedias. This does not mean they are presenting disputed information. I gave the Akhun as an example not as a fact, this is indeed the case. Probably, Iranian encyclopedia presents the information in their own pov. Actually, every source or reference has its own pov. However, there are generally accepted (common) tones and these are the ones most probably included in the Britannica and Columbia. I strongly agree that encyclopedias are not the places for original research. One cannot prepare a PhD. thesis based on these, but wikipedia is not a place to present PhD. theses. One more note, i have nothing to do with nationalism and your claims worries me. Please keep in mind that i'm responsible only for my own edits. I shall give you some examples, i shall greatly appreciate if you spend some time to check these links to the talk pages, perhaps in this way you'll better realise who is the nationalistic pov forker. Here is the start point of the conflict:[], then [], goes on...[][][][][]. Ironically, Alex, Khoikhoi and Hectorian are my friends by the way. Sorry, for this long explanation but i do not deserve to be named as nationalistic pov forker. Sincere Regards E104421 10:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I checked both paper and online versions of Britannica and Columbia from our university library, these are the current updated versions (i already presented the whole content of these pages in the talk discussion page). I also agree with presenting all the material available. These iranian friends are trying to represent only the iranian one, deleting all the others. On the other hand, i'm still supporting the original research claim cause it's not safer to present the very recent data as if it is the favoured one. Time is need to built a consensus. I started reading Enoki Kazuo's article. He also comments that nothing definite has been recorded about the origin of the Ephthalites, and more reasearh is needed to identify their origins. I shall check the others you have cited, too. Thank you for your contribution. For the nationalistic claim, do not worry. This is unfortunately common in wikipedia. Once upon a time, i also accused of being ultra-anti-turkic fanatic. Everybody tries to favor their own pov, but i usually do not, cause i'm an academic, too, but a physicist. Kind Regards, E104421 11:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thx for your contribution, Sikandarji. I've moved your edit to the "origin" section, keeping the intro which is short and precise. Tājik 18:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Money->Mouth
All right Mr "Non-Partisan Scholar". Care to voice your opinion concerning this?

Articles for deletion/Historically-defined racial groups in India

and this article:

Pakistani nationalism?

Hkelkar 09:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

iranica
First of all, you're accusing without asking where i got the information or how i reached such a conclusion. These should be the questions, you're expected to ask before critisizing my neutrality or good faith. The iranica web site is not working, i could not connect to that site. Then i check the wikipage. Please, take a look at iranica. I stated what's written there in the talk page. There it's written that the encyclopedia is edited by Ehsan Yarshater (editor) and chaired by Mahmoud Khayami (iranian industrialist). That's it. It probable that the editor and the board chair have important administrative effects on the encyclopedia. I do not know the guys, i'm not an iran expert, i'm reflecting my opinion, i got from that page. If it's not true say it so or try to explain. There is no bad faith in it. You have an inclination to attack without considering all these. E104421 23:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, conspiracy. As i said before i'm not very well acquainted with the field, for this reason, i'm asking or telling my observation. These may not be correct. Today, i'm able to connect the site, although it's working very slow, i shall look for your cited documents. Regarding to your sentence "The idea that they would compromise their academic reputation by pushing a pan-Iranian POV because some Iranian businessman is on the board of the Iranica is simply ludicrous", this is not the claim i put forward. I said the editor and the board chair are responsible for the selection of articles, i just suspected whether they select the ones they'd like to favor. This is totally different than what you understand. About the funding case, i think my information is correct, see sponsorship [], clearly funded by iranians, of course this does not prove anything. For the encyclopedia of islam, i never commented, as you said there is also a turkish translation, both available in our library. My reasoning totally different than a historian, that's right. Physicists are usually suspicious. I can give you a simple example related with how this conspiracy came to my mind. Consider the Turkish-Armenian dispute, the cases of Justin McCarthy and Bernard Lewis are quite clear, i do not think that any armenia/armenian organized publications even cites their works "for this case", but always publishes the ones favoring armenian view. They might publish their other works on other cases as well. That's my first sight about the iranica. I shall read the documents you provided. Regards E104421 11:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * About the Ephthalites, I read the Enoki Kazuo's 1959 article mentioned above. He first summaries the old theories of that time based on Chinese chronicles, and continues with that time's modern ones, namely 1. the hun hypothesis, 2. the mongol hypothesis, 3. the turk hypothesis, then 4. the altaic people hypothesis. He also comments on pp.30 that "in any way, the origin of Ephthalites, of which nothing definite has been recorded, should be studied from another angle than an uncertain interpretation of their name. For this purpose, it is necessary to for us to study the history and, if any, cultural characteristics of these people". For this reason, he proposes another claim that there may be an iranian tribe theory also. At the end he concludes as follows "Though my grounds are rather scarce, it is expected that the historical and linguistic materials concerning Ephthalites are to be incread in the future and most of the newly discovered materials seem the more to confirm my iranian-tribe theory". pp.63 "Kazuo Enoki", "On the nationality of Ephthalites 1959". I think the Columbia and Britannica covers updated material concerning this issue, since the online versions are dated 2005. One thing for sure is that nothing definite has been recorded about the origin of the Ephthalites, and more reasearh is needed to identify their origins. I shall also read the others. One more note, as you said the iranica is an official publication of columbia university as the columbia encyclopedia. How the two differ? E104421 11:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The last sentences you wrote are baseless accusations against me. This simply reflects that you never read my comments, but just skipped. I recommend you to read what you wrote there again: "What you have tried to do is take a brief statement from a much less detailed and well-authored source and privilege it over all other evidence, whilst making entirely unwarranted allegations about the neutrality of the Iranica (you made similar allegations about the Encyclopaedia of Islam to begin with, but then gave up when that bird wouldn't fly). What exactly is it you're complaining about? Your Columbia reference is still there, your little passage about their possible Turkic or Tibetan origin is still there, it is simply that evidence and references to more reputable scholarly sources have been added, giving alternative views on what is a very obscure topic. What's your grievance? Are you saying you'd like to see all this excluded?" I replied these in Talk:Hephthalite. E104421 18:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Tipu Sultan
I have added battle of pollilur, added some details on second and forth mysore wars and will soon add third mysore as I am still working on it. Tipu fougth the british during the first mysore war when he was just 17 years [] even during the age of 14 he helped the marathas in their war with the British.

Could you please help me out in expanding the article for the above said points. Bye and have a great day. Mujeerkhan 18:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What about foreign relation (French Connection), wars with neighbouring states, trade and commerce,Social Reforms etc and how about this "It is also true that for political reason he was harsh on the Nairs of Malabar, the Christians of Mangalore and the Raja of Coorg, for they were allied with the British. If he was harsh on them he did not spare the Muslim mopillas and Mahdevis in the interest of law and order, peace and security. He was more friendly with the Marathas than with the Nizam. Srinivas Rao and Appaji Ram were entrusted with the important task of negotiating peace with other powers. Purnaiya held the Revenue and Finance portfolios. Krishna Rao was the Treasurer. Narsing Rao held a key post at Srirangapatna. Nagappaya a Brahmin, was the faujdar of Coorg. Hari Singh commanded a wing of Cavalry. Therefore, his policy was strictly secular" "Gandhiji wrote in Young India that he was an embodiment of Hindu-Muslim unity". []

Mujeerkhan 18:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Karcha
First of all, thanks once again for your contribution in Hephthalites. Since you, too, seem to be annoyed by User:Karcha, I thought you might be interested in his most recent act of vandalism:, once again removing scholarly articles (one written by Clifford Edmund Bosworth in Encyclopaedia Iranica, the other being an introduction to Ismalic mysticism, by the late Prof. Dr. Annemarie Schimmel).

Tājik 11:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Racist comments by User:NisarKand
Because of his racist comments, I have reported User:NisarKand to admins. Please take some time to have a look at this:

Your opinion and comments may help to solve the problem.

Thx.

Tājik 17:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

White flag, need help
I was wondering if you could take a look at Cheema, on which I have filed an RfC. It was heavily edited by User:Street Scholar, who got blocked for making several inflammatory and racist comments against numerous people. There is a strong possibility that he has misrepresented his sources and filled the article with non-neutral nonsense against Hindu Cheemas. I tried to fix it, based on the source "Sindhi Culture" by U.T Thakkur (University of Bombay 1959). Street Scholar's version was this. I made some modifications to this. Could you please check the article to make sure everything gels together, the narrative is neutral, and the refs verify the text? Thanks.Hkelkar 18:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your attention. I am particularly concerned that a book titled "History of the Jaats" by Ram Swaroop Joon was misrepresented in the article (used extensively as a source by Street Scholar). I can;t get my hands on the book at UT and was wondering if you'd take some time to check it out.Hkelkar 18:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw your discussion on Hkelkar's talk page. I'm certain there are Sikh Cheemas as well, because a famous Indian American named Boona Cheema was Sikh (and not converted, Sikh family). Bakaman  Bakatalk 02:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Again Pan-Turkistic vandalism
Sorry to bother you again, but User:E104421 - a Turkish nationalist who also vandalized the article Hephthalites - is not messing up the articles Babur, Mughal Empire, Khwarezmian Empire, and Seljuqs.

Your help is - once again - needed.

PS: the conflict in Babur is not about the Turkic mother-tongue of Babur, or his Turkic culture (this is already mentioned in the "Origins" section), but about E104421's stubborn try to state that info in the intro; the intro was a compromise version which did not mention any ethnic or linguistic issues, but simply described him as a "Muslim conqueror from central Asia" ... The mentioned user is not happy with that).

Tājik 17:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (unintending) To Sikandarji: I referred to Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedias, that's it. If you're any comments/thoughts, you're welcome. Regards. E104421 17:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Question

 * How much do you know about Muslim Caste Systems (Beradaris, Ashraf/Ajlaf/Arzal, Qoms that sort of thing)? Hkelkar 23:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Timurids

 * As far as i understood from the protected version, it does not describe as Turkish but Turkic. I checked the source, now directly copying the paragraph from Britannica here:

Timurid Dynasty: (fl. 15th–16th century AD), Turkic dynasty descended from the conqueror Timur (Tamerlane), renowned for its brilliant revival of artistic and intellectual life in Iran and Central Asia. After Timur's death (1405), his conquests were divided between two of his sons: Miranshah (d. 1407) received Iraq, Azerbaijan, Moghan, Shirvan, and Georgia, while Shah Rokh was left with Khorasan. ...

You see, if this is wrong you should correct and provide sources rather than accusing. This is not a mental problem of anyone. That's what written there. Furthermore, in my opinion, Turkic refers to the language family not the nationality. Regards. E104421 11:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This template is being put up for deletion for the very same reasons you stated on the Timurid talk page. I agree with you that it is very misleading and inaccurate.Khosrow II


 * Yes, of course, a dynasty cannot belong to a lingusitic family, but it's written there as Turkic dynasty. I'm not a native English speaker, but as far as i understood, it means either Turkic speaking dynasty or dynasty of turkic people. In Britannica, there are Turkic people and Turkic languages entries both refering to each other. In my opinion, better to use the Turkic term in the context of language cause Turkic is a relatively new term for etnic labelling that doesn't correspond to anything precisely. In this way, Turkic dynasty means Turkic speaking dynasty or their descendents. For the etnical labelling, i'm strongly agree with you. For Timurids article, as you said, better to call them Turco-Mongols. For me, etnical labelling is not necessary. However, in my opinion, it's worth noting the language spoken by both the elite and the people, in addition, the language of literature. Since these contitutes an important part of the culture. I'll have a look at the sources you mentioned. Thanx. Sincere regards. E104421 14:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Central Asian studies
Since you're an academic of Central Asian studies, can you please comment on the discussion at Templates for deletion.--Mardavich 12:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Thanks for your reply. I am working on expanding Caste and Indian Caste System. I would like to expand on Muslim Castes in Central Asia and all that other stuff you said. Do you have any references that you can give me? As far as Yemen is concerned, I found information on the al-Akhdham outcastes and elaborated Caste. What is the situation with the upper castes there (particularly since Yemeni upper caste descent seems to matter so much in Central Asia)? I would like some refs about the nasab thing as it seems important in the Caste dynamics. Could you also cite me a ref for this presence of duality between local legends of castes and legends of being descended from Mohamed or invaders (I will do my own searches also, of course). As far as I read, the Sayyids are Ashrafs (upper caste) who claim to be purely descended from Mohamed. Is that too simplistic? Are there any converts-caste (Ajlaf I guess) among the Sayyids? Do the Sayyids have any local legends in addition to their legends of Arab ancestry? Hkelkar 23:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings
Hi Sikandarji,

Nice to meet you. I am also persian. --Aminz 00:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

oops, sorry it seems you are not persian! nice to meet you anyways :P --Aminz 00:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice to meet you again anyways. Well, I can only speak of my own experience. I have studied some of the works of 19th century, early 20th century, and late 20th century scholars on Islam. One can observe dramatic changes. The works of Watt and Lewis are much more unbiased, not to speak of the medieval perception of Islam in west. Martin Forward states that "Frankly, it’s hard for Christians to say affirmative things about a religion like Islam that postdates their own, which they are brought up to believe contains all things necessary for salvation. And it’s difficult for Muslims to face the fact that Christians aren’t persuaded by the view that Christianity is only a stop on the way to Islam, the final religion."

I do think there are some truth in Said's work. Anyways, nice to meet you again. --Aminz 00:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Your vote regarding 'Bengalooru'
Hi, I noticed you opposed the movement of Bangalore to Bangaluru (although the right official spelling is Bengalooru, so I opposed as well). I just wanted to drop anote saying the examples you have chosen are all correct; however, they have not 'officially' changed and/or requested english speakers to use a different name. For those cities that have changed names, it is polite to listen to them, e.g.: Bangalore to Bengalooru follows this trend of official re-names. Unless Moscow officially changes their english name to Muskva, then I also believe it should stay at Moscow. For an article that better words this viewpoint than I do, you can read the article from The Economist: (although you'll need an account). This is just an opinion i'd like to share with you, I'm sure there are poeple who think otherwise! Thanks, atanamir 21:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Burma --> Myanmar
 * Bombay --> Mumbai
 * Calcutta --> Kolkata
 * Ivory Coast --> Cote d'Ivorie (probably spelled this wrong)
 * Alma Ata --> Almaty
 * Kirgizstan --> Kyrgyzstan
 * Madras --> Chennai

I agree with you about the overall silliness of the name chanes. Most indians I know also still sy it as bombay and calcutta (sorry for my keyboard, it's hard to type with, so there might be more typoes than normal). However, as Economist pointed out, I believe it's more of an issue of politeness from us that we respect their wishes. It's like a friend whom would like you to refer to by a different name -- you'd do it out of respect for him/her. If i had my way, i'd keep everything at their old names too, but since they have asked us to (the government's issuance of a name change is practically a request in itself), we should abide by their request. That's just my opinion, anyways... atanamir 21:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi,

Sikandarji - glad to see your views on the spelling of Mysore: as with any other word, so for names a dictionary or encyclopedia needs to be guided by common use by native speakers, not some kind of political or politically correct agenda (and as for the generals renaming Burma as Myanmar, let's not go there!). Deipnosophista 15:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hephthalites
Once again, your help is needed. User:E104421 is once again reverting to wrong versions, claiming that you have written those versions.

Tājik 18:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Sikandarji, your help is needed. Could you please revert/edit the Hephthalites to your compromise version. I reverted to your last version dated 15:12, 9 November 2006 Sikandarji (Talk | contribs) (OK, how's this? Can somebody shrink the text in the footnotes? I'm not sure how.)  but tajik keep on reverting to his favorite version. Sorry for inconvenience but your help may solve this issue. Thanks in advance. Regards. E104421 18:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe you might have recognized, somebody is using your name/status as if it was an argument for giving some version of an article special authority and as if it was done with your permission and contribution. Examples are here and here. What do you think of that? E104421 17:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)



Semirech[i/y]e and romanization of Russian
Thank you for your comment, Sikandarji. I just wanted to point out that WP:RUS is far from being a non-standard oddball. It is in fact a slightly modified version of the BGN/PCGN system, which is used quite extensively to romanize geographic names. It is just as well established as the ALA-LC system, and, from my observations, is used more often. Another reason not to use ALA-LC is its overall heavy reliance on diacritics.

Anyway, if matters of romanizing Russian interest you, you are welcome to add your opinion on WP:CYR&mdash;a policy draft for romanizing Slavic languages (including Russian), which is supposed to eventually replace WP:RUS. Let me know if you have any questions.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RUS romanizes "ы" with "y" as well, but omits the soft sign completely. The "y" in "Semirechye" does not stand for the soft sign per se, but rather shows that "e" is iotated. Also, as I said before, WP:RUS does not match BGN/PCGN exactly; it is a modified BGN/PCGN. These modifications were introduced only to increase readability&mdash;apostrophes for soft signs are omitted pretty much for the same reason why diacritics are not used. Note that this practice was not invented solely for Wikipedia but mirrors common romanization practices. Britannica does the same, for example ("Ulyanov", "Polsky"). Take any newspaper news about Russia&mdash;you are highly unlikely to see apostrophes in romanized names there. Hope this answers your question.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Taj Mahal RFC
Dear Sikandarji, I have read, with interest, your comments on the talk of Taj Mahal. Wikipedias coverage of such an important and famous building deserves to represent the best of wikipedia, but the article currently seems mired in difficulties relating to a fringe-theory. Accordingly, I propose launching an RFC to establish the extent to which minority theories should be included within the article. I have drafted a statement on my talk page and I would be very grateful for any input or comments you would like to make. Many thanks. --Joopercoopers 11:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've filed the RFC at Talk:Taj Mahal. --Joopercoopers 16:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * How did you get on with the translation of Lahouri? The only remotely serious academic discussion I can find is here. I'm not sure the Pratt institute is known for its academic standing but the thing seems to hang on Marvin H. Mills translation of Manzil as a mansion. The rest of his arguments are pretty weak (I'm no academic, but a real practicing architect). There's no problem with Jahan trying to gee-up delivery of his stone - this doesn't pre-suppose any kind of structure is already there to support it, it could be stored or the dressing and cutting would presumably take some time, ideas of 'lead-in' times were around in the 17th century. He completely overlooks the fact that the construction of the Tomb of Jahangir was started 4 years before the taj and took less than 10 years to complete - so the organisational infrastructure were already geared up for big construction jobs, indeed their are considerable formal similarities between the tomb of Jahangir in combination with the Tomb of Humayun (which took only a few years to build) and the Taj. The only real technical problem was the foundations - and the well foundation had already been tried and tested at Agra. A quick build time, to me, looks like someone throwing a lot of men and resources at the problem and managing it effectively. --Joopercoopers 15:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see why he was approached though - --Joopercoopers 16:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Another note - it's interesting to learn that Jahan's grandmother was Maryam-uz-Zamani, the sister of a certain Raja Bhagwant Das whose son was Raja Man Singh and whose great grandson was Jai Singh from whom the land was purchased. The linking of Mughal and Rajasthani dynasties was taking place through marriage and issue. Koch maintains that "Jai Singh was prepared to present the property to Shah Jahan, but the emperor, anxious to proceed without a shade of doubt in the sensitive matter of his queen's last resting place, insisted on giving him in exchange four other mansions at Agra" - from Jahans' farman translated by Begley and Desai 1989 - interesting use of the word other, I've got that book on order to check. If it's accurate would you mind having a look at the original to see if its accurate? sorry to impose. regards --Joopercoopers 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedov
In terms of the move (from "-ow" to "-ov"), how should the article proceed now? My best guess would be to replace all the ows with ovs, but include at the beginning something which has the Turkmen spelling of his name. I'll make the changes if you're too busy to, but obviously consensus is golden. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
You're a gentleman and a scholar sir. cheers --Joopercoopers 16:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Tajikistan
Hi,

I was thinking about expanding the articles related to History of Tajikistan. I was wondering if you can help. Jahangard 14:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Andijan massacre
Thank you for your insightful analysis within the discussion section.

Given your academic status, would you mind commenting on an issue pertaining to the current introduction?

Best regards, Djma12 01:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Baburnama
Hi, I hope you can help me with my unusual request. On the talk page of the article Mughal Empire, you quoted from Wheeler M. Thackston's The Babur-nama about the self-designation of the Mughals. If possible, could you please give me the page from which you took this quote? I would like to use it in an article for the German Wikipedia but I don't have access to the book! Can you maybe recommend other books on this topic (etymology of Mughal/Gurkani)? Thanks in advance--Young Pioneer 14:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak
Have fun on your wikibreak - sounds very exotic. Did you get to talk to Dr Jaffery? --Joopercoopers 16:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hello Sikandarji, how are you? We used to talk months ago! What are you upto these days?--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Indian National Army
Hi Sikandarji, not sure if you'd remember, but we had a debate over the Azad Hind article. Just wondering, would you have any good books on the INA? I am expanding the article (significantly), but my primary source is Fay's The Forgotten Army and Lebra's Japanese trained armies of South-East Asia. I can't really find the Jungle Alliance. It'd be great if you could have a look and add in some stuff. I am going to add to the last two sections on INA brutality and Fighting force (might not agree with your views, but I am using Fay), but I don't really have much on the Iwakuo Kikan and Hindustan Field Force. Also, the first INA's order of Battle is somewhat lost (as is that of the second one). Would greatly appreciate any help. Rueben lys 17:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC) PS:I really want to improve this one to FA class or close.
 * I read Bailey and Harper, but it doesn't really have much at all on the INA (except the surrender to British personnel at Rangoon at the end). It thoroughly focusses on Burma and the crescent, and more on the BIA. Also I felt it had a bit of PoV to it, not in the sense that it is very anti-Japanese as much as it doesn't take a balanced and equal description, and more than glosses over the millitary aspect and the bad aspects of the commonwealth forces, especially in the colonial period (which is not relevant to this article) and the retreat from Burma.

What I am particularly lacking is Lebra's Jungle Alliance. I had an idea Fay's views may not agree with yours :) but the end analysis actually agrees very closely with some other of the more modern analysis of the end of the Raj I am reading (I am not a History Student, BTW). But what I was hoping was, if you had the time, could you have a look (I'll let you know when I think I've finished expanding, but please add in before that if you know anything.). I thought this would help the article NPOV.Rueben lys 12:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You got me wrong, what I tried to say was Bailey and Harper concentrates on Japanese atrocities without perhaps explaining enough (they consider these very briefly) as to what events, occurings, ground situation, resistance movements, sabotage and reversals were precipitating these responses. In addition, it mentions extremely briefly in parts similar attitudes and practices (as well as totally different ones) that existed in Colonial Burma, or in general among the colonial governments, and even during the war itself, among commonwealth forces (I am sure read a line that says British Indian army had it's own versions of comfort women, and grossly understates the ill-behaviour of American troops who were in-transit through Calcutta) without giving enough coverage to it, which seemed to me to have a very overt objective of reinforcing the view "them bad, us good".
 * I do not wish to belittle the hardships or the memory of your relatives who suffered. But the war and all the collaboration, resistance movements and pro or anti Japanese and British emotions that you see developed before the war started and hardened (in India, Indian immigrants resident in South-east Asia, and among Indian refugees from Burma), or changed (in Burma) during the war.
 * As for the war itself, I've said before, I want to know the facts. I would not dwell in who I'd like to win. I do not dwell in it, the war is over, it happened, and it happened the way it did. I wanted to figure out the facts.Rueben lys 13:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hello Sikandarji, hope you are well. Haven't seen you in a while. Do you think it is at all possible you could have a look at the INA article?I expanded it (but is still incomplete), but I would like to have another editor having a look to make sure no bias may have crept in. Would appreciate the help.Rueben lys 16:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Your help is needed
Hi, Sikandarji. Along with Barefact, we're working on the Turko-Persian tradition article. I shall greatly appreciate if you'd be kind enough to review the article. Best wishes. E104421 11:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A new Oxbridge user box
Sikandarji...I am currently in the process of writing a user box for all of the colleges that are part of Oxbridge. This template is meant to replace your current college template. Please take a look at the work in progress and comment on it. My main concerns are college abbreviations and color choice. I am using scarf colors for the colleges. Thank you. - LA @ 17:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:B_king.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:B_king.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 16:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Bart_King.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bart_King.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 17:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Von Kaufman1.JPG
File:Von Kaufman1.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Von Kaufman portrait.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Image question
When you say File:Khivinskii Pokhod.JPG comes from Туркестанский Сборник, do you mean this book? i'm trying to get a year for the engraving so i can put on the proper PD tag. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Kokand.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Kokand.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 00:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Aryk for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aryk is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Aryk until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ReeceTheHawk (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)